- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 10/15/20 at 3:41 pm to SlidellCajun
quote:used to be called carpetbagging, something liberals are all too familiar with and have been for over 150 years
Diversity is such a bullshite concept
Except for the ability to understand other cultures, what is the point?
The left literally expects you to forget your own culture and absorb other cultures as some purity test.
They’re ashamed to be Americans.
Posted on 10/15/20 at 4:00 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
Sen. Blumenthal is worried that Judge Barrett would rule laws such as red flag laws, ex parte civil protection orders confiscating guns, etc.. unconstitutional.
And he damn well should be concerned about that because they are.
I deal with Orders of Protection as a routine part of my job as a family law attorney. With as many times as these things are abused to gain leverage in a custody and/or divorce litigation where there was no actual physical abuse, realistic threat of abuse, or the "victim" having a reasonable fear of abuse, forever barring someone from lawfully owning a firearm as a result is unconscionable. And, for whatever reason (maybe COVID), I have seen more of these filed in the past several months than I have ever seen in my career. Same with domestic assault. Had a client knock his wife glasses off her face (no injuries) and was charged with assault, which obviously does fit the statute. Fortunately, we worked out a deal to have the charge dismissed, but everywhere doesn't work like that. It just happened to be in a county that herds cattle and doesn't have time prosecute minor offenses. But everyone isn't so lucky. But we are seemingly so quick to take away people's constitutional rights for minor incidences that have never happened before, will never happen again, and those actions alone have nothing to do with someone having the propensity to use deadly force if those rights are not terminated.
Now, I have no problem from barring someone from possessing a firearm who has been convicted with a violent felony or with gun related crimes. I also have no problem with more thorough background checks and/or doing better with the mental health aspects of gun ownership in this country. But it's gone too far.
This post was edited on 10/15/20 at 4:02 pm
Posted on 10/15/20 at 4:09 pm to KCT
Oh she likes her some Booker also.
Posted on 10/15/20 at 5:03 pm to lsufball19
Shall not be infringed....
Posted on 10/15/20 at 5:05 pm to bstew3006
quote:
White woman with black husband w mix child
It makes my head hurt to think about them sitting around a table trying to figure who pays reparations to whom! (I may have screwed up the who/whom grammar, sorry, I don't care all that much)
Posted on 10/15/20 at 5:50 pm to BayBengal9
Think she’ll be confirmed before the end of the month? Got a bet riding on it.
Posted on 10/15/20 at 5:51 pm to MDB
quote:
MDB
Not to sound rude, but anyone who understands anything about the Supreme Court, or I'd even say politics in general, understands the "notorious ACB" reference.
Ruth Beta Ginsburg was popularly and often referred to in virtually ALL liberal circles as the "Notorious RGB."
In fact, there were even articles written and libs on Twitter being apoplectic about Amy Coney Barrett being referred to as "Notorious ACB" in a play-on-words.
I just wanted to continue doing my small part to trigger libs everywhere by using the thread title I did.
Posted on 10/15/20 at 5:51 pm to tigahfromtheham
quote:
Think she’ll be confirmed before the end of the month? Got a bet riding on it.
110% chance
Posted on 10/15/20 at 6:35 pm to tigahfromtheham
Can someone explain the point of delaying the vote until the 22/23rd? Hearing is over, how about tomorrow?
Just makes me nervous that they pull a Kavanaugh and convince some weak R that we need more hearings.
Just makes me nervous that they pull a Kavanaugh and convince some weak R that we need more hearings.
Posted on 10/15/20 at 7:25 pm to MDB
I’ll bet you’re fun at parties.
Posted on 10/15/20 at 7:47 pm to Whodat4300
So how many I’m offended faces did Klobahchar make? Bitch is offended by looking in the mirror.
Posted on 10/15/20 at 10:17 pm to BayBengal9
Help me understand why the committee won’t vote until Oct 22? And then how long until the full Senate gets it?
Posted on 10/16/20 at 8:18 am to sms151t
Of all senators, she has been the most disappointing to me.
She comes across as bitter and full of rage
She comes across as bitter and full of rage
Posted on 10/16/20 at 8:23 am to MidWestGuy
Your usage of who and whom is quite correct. FYI.
Posted on 10/16/20 at 12:17 pm to MDB
quote:
implying a play-on-words
Does your mom know you are up this early?
Posted on 10/16/20 at 12:42 pm to MidWestGuy
quote:
Can someone explain the point of delaying the vote until the 22/23rd? Hearing is over, how about tomorrow?
I really can't answer this as I have not seen comment from Republicans on it.
I can say I'm almost certain the Senate isn't working today, so that carries things over to next week, and it's possible they already had scheduled hearings for something else on Monday...
But, yeah, ultimately I have no real idea why they're waiting another week.
Posted on 10/16/20 at 1:59 pm to BayBengal9
The holdover is tradition
Posted on 10/16/20 at 2:10 pm to Caughtthat4ironflush
quote:
Your usage of who and whom is quite correct. FYI.
Thanks, heh-heh! I do try to use good grammar, even in casual posts, but I have a mental block on some of this. I actually did a quick google search, thought it was right, but wasn't confident about it. I find it quite confusing.
Popular
Back to top
